1. Grant Mechanisms Research Projects
Small Research Grant
R21
Exploratory/Developmental Grant
R15
Academic Research Enhancement Award (AREA)
R43, R44
Small Business Innovation Research Grant (SBIR)
P01
Research Program Project
R03, SMALL GRANT, PA (
Scope: Pilot or feasibility studies, Secondary analysis of existing data, Small, self-contained research projects, Development of research methodology, Development of new research technology
<= two years; <= $50,000 per year.
Research Plan <= 10 pages.
Only one revision.
R21, EXPLORATORY/DEVELOPMENTAL GRANT, PA (
Scope:
encourage new, exploratory and developmental research projects by providing support for the early stages of their development (e.g., assess the feasibility of a novel area of investigation or a new experimental system that has the potential to enhance health-related research.
may involve considerable risk but may lead to a breakthrough in a particular area, or to the development of novel techniques, agents, methodologies, models or applications that could have major impact on a field
<= two years
The combined budget for the two year project period <= $275,000.
Two revisions permitted
R15, AREA Grants (
Institution: <= $3 million/yr TC in each of four or more of the last seven years
PI: May not be the principal investigator of any active NIH research grant

2. Grant Mechanisms Fellowship & Research Career Programs
Predoctoral Individual National Research Service Award (NRSA)
Postdoctoral Individual National Research Service Award (NRSA)
K22 K01
Career Transition Award (NIAID) Career Transition Award (NCI)
K08
Clinical Investigator Award
K23
Mentored Patient-Oriented Research Career Development Award
K22, CAREER TRANSITION AWARD
NIAID:
Applicants: postdocs 1) in an NIAID intramural lab; 2) supported T32, F32 or RSUMs
Time: two years; not renewable
PHASE I: Research plan
Phase II (12 months to identify a suitable position)
Acceptable start-up package = a) position as asst. prof. b) significant funds and resources; c) modest if any teaching load; d) no administrative responsibilities.
Budget: $150K for 1st yr; $100K for 2nd yr.

3. Review of your proposal
There are hundreds of study sections
grant / study section
Study section rosters (about 20 people) can be found at:
Each grant has about 3 reviewers
All study section members score the grant
Choose a study section that has goals consistent
with your proposal
You can lose on the abstract and first page

4. Grant Writing What makes a good grant proposal?
What makes a great grant proposal?
Good idea
Good science
Good application

5. A good proposal Is this enough? Well performed study
Appropriate and up-to date technology
Carefully analyzed data that is accurately reported
Ethical considerations dealt with appropriately
What is important in your field
Do you know the field and its literature?
Is the field overpospulated?
Is the scope of the prpblem achievable
Is this enough?

6. Benchmarks of an “Outstanding” Application
New or original ideas
Focused, incisive research plan
Knowledge of published relevant work
Experience in essential methodology
Future directions and contingency plans

7. More Benchmarks of an outstanding proposal
Published in respected journals
Recognized and cited by peers
Presented at high-quality meetings
Fundable on competitive grant review
What is important in your field
Do you know the field and its literature?
Is the field overpospulated?
Is the scope of the prpblem achievable

8. What makes an outstanding proposal?
Asks important questions
Has potential to yield “seminal” observations
What is important in your field
Do you know the field and its literature?
Is the field overpospulated?
Is the scope of the prpblem achievable

9. Does the project have the potential to yield a “seminal” observation?
Create truly new knowledge?
Lead to new ways of thinking?
Lay the foundation for further research in the field?
What is important in your field
Do you know the field and its literature?
Is the field overpospulated?
Is the scope of the prpblem achievable

10. Writing a Grant Proposal
Good idea
Good science
Good application

11. Pursue original science
Consider your perspective:
Novel vs. derivative
Hypothesis-driven vs. “fishing expedition”
Mechanistic vs. descriptive

12. Picking a Research Project
Ten steps to picking a Research Project
What is important in your field
Do you know the field and its literature?
Is the field overpospulated?
Is the scope of the prpblem achievable
C. Ronald Kahn
New England Journal of Medicine

13. Steps to picking a Research Project
Anticipate Results you might obtain Is the most successful outcome interesting? What would be the next step if you are successful? Are you prepared to follow up?
What is important in your field
Do you know the field and its literature?
Is the field overpospulated?
Is the scope of the prpblem achievable

14. Steps to picking a Research Project
Is the area of interest to a large fraction of the scientific community?
If only of interest to a limited number of people in the field, results may be difficult to publish and hard to fund
What is important in your field
Do you know the field and its literature?
Is the field overpospulated?
Is the scope of the prpblem achievable

15. Steps to picking a Research Project
Is the field overpopulated?
Look for an under-occupied niche that has potential
Good strategy for someone finishing a postdoctoral fellowship Try to avoid competing head-on with mentors or other recognized figures in your field

16. Steps to picking a Research Project
The best ideas come from listening to talks and reading papers outside your area of interest.
Talks and papers outside your area of interest may point you in truly new directions and allow you to anticipate the evolution of the field.
What is important in your field
Do you know the field and its literature?
Is the field overpospulated?
Is the scope of the prpblem achievable

17. Steps to picking a Research Project
Find a balance between low-risk and high-risk projects
Include a high-interest project because this will be an opportunity to make a truly seminal observation
What is important in your field
Do you know the field and its literature?
Is the field overpospulated?
Is the scope of the prpblem achievable

18. Steps to picking a Research Project
Be prepared to pursue the work to the next important level.
To be recognized for important research accomplishments may require a willingness to pursue a project to any depth necessary
What is important in your field
Do you know the field and its literature?
Is the field overpospulated?
Is the scope of the prpblem achievable

19. Steps to picking a Research Project
Differentiate yourself from your mentor
This is especially true of you stay at the same institution.
Independence is an important criteria for promotion and tenure
You need to be more expert than your mentor in some area even if you choose to collaborate.
What is important in your field
Do you know the field and its literature?
Is the field overpospulated?
Is the scope of the prpblem achievable

20. Picking a Research Problem
However, collaboration can be a good strategy especially if you are not technically prepared to carry out a particular aspect of the project
List an expert in this area as a collaborator on your grant.
Once you have established some expertise in an area, you can become more independent.
Picking a Research Problem
What is important in your field
Do you know the field and its literature?
Is the field overpospulated?
Is the scope of the prpblem achievable

21. Steps to picking a Research Project
Focus rather than trying to make an impact in three or four different areas at once.
At first focus on one or at most two projects and define very limited goals.
What is important in your field
Do you know the field and its literature?
Is the field overpospulated?
Is the scope of the prpblem achievable

22. Writing a Grant Proposal
Good idea
Good science
Good application

23. Good Science Logical and organized Research Plan
Rationale for the Methods chosen
Include Experimental Pitfalls
Include Alternative Approaches
Sufficient Experimental Detail
Prelimianry dataa may consist of your won publicaitons, publicaions of others, unpulished data from your won laboratory or from others, or some combination.

24. Good Science Use appropriate controls
Avoid “shotgun” approaches and “fishing expeditions”
Do not assume reviewers with know what you mean: SPELL IT OUT
Prelimianry dataa may consist of your won publicaitons, publicaions of others, unpulished data from your won laboratory or from others, or some combination.

25. Good Science The Hypothesis
A meaningful hypothesis and a means to test it
Rationale for the hypothesis
A set of related aims
Aims that are focused and not diffuse
What is important in your field
Do you know the field and its literature?
Is the field overpospulated?
Is the scope of the prpblem achievable

26. Formulate Sound Hypotheses
Original slide from Roz Sandri-Goldin
What’s the hypothesis here?

27. Writing a Grant Proposal
Good idea
Good science
Good application

28. Good Application Read and Follow all instructions
Make sure your Institute offers the type of grant you plan to prepare. For instance, not all Institutes offer R21 grants
Use clear and grammatically correct English
Write short, clear sentences. Minimize the use of overly technical jargon
Avoid Reviewer fatigue

29. Selling Your Ideas
It’s your responsibility to make it effortless for the reviewers to understand…
Your ideas
Why they are important
Why your approach is reasonable and feasible
Present an organized, lucid write-up!
Write for the skeptic: how would you convince your harshest critic?
Do not write the application for the “specialist:” assume the reviewers won’t know your system as well as you do

30. Keep your focus on your big picture
Focus: do not let your ideas wander from your main theme
Show how this project fits into your “big picture” research objectives, describe future directions

31. Presentation & Formatting
Prepare a reviewer-friendly application!
Organize with headings & subheadings, but avoid too many levels
Include well-designed tables and figures with appropriate legends
Stay within the page limitations
Use a readable typeface and font size (Ariel 11pt)
Minimize grammatical & typographical errors

32. Components of a Grant Application
Abstract
Specific Aims
Background and Significance
Preliminary Results
Research design

33. Keys for a Successful Grant Application Abstract
Pretend reviewer has only this page to read
Abstract should be a mini outline for the proposal.

34. Keys for a Successful Grant Application Abstract
Include a general statement of the problem being addressed including gaps in our knowledge
Include your hypothesis and why your experiments will fill the gaps in our knowledge (and why this is important)
Include an outline of the specific aims and methods to be used, expected outcomes and the long-range significance.

35. Keys for a Successful Grant Application Abstract
Original slide from Roz Sandri-Goldin

36. Specific Aims
The Specific Aims are the first part of the proposal that the reviewer reads. Include a short description of problem and background summary (one paragraph)
The Specific Aims should address an hypothesis and the hypothesis should be clearly stated
They should be bulleted and clearly and succinctly outline the proposed research.
Original slide from Roz Sandri-Goldin

37. Important Tip Specfic Aims
The specific aims should be interrelated but should not depend on the success of one aim to perform the others.
Example:
Aim 1 proposes to identify and clone the cellular receptor that restricts HXV infection to humans. In Aim 2, there are plans to construct transgenic mice expressing the receptor to develop an animal model for HXV to study pathogenesis.
What if there is more than one receptor? Or you are not successful in identifying putative receptors? Or infection is also blocked at a stage past entry?
Original slide from Roz Sandri-Goldin

38. Keys for a Successful Grant Application Specific Aims
Identify hole in our knowledge
Explain why this hole is important
State your hypothesis and long term goals
Identify a series of logical steps to test your hypothesis

39. Keys for a Successful Grant Application Specific Aims
List the aims as a bulleted list with a brief description of the approaches to be used after each aim
Be specific. Avoid generalities.
Avoid saying you will characterize or describe a phenomenon or determine the relationship between two processes

40. Keys for a Successful Grant Application Specific Aims
Think about “aim” as a verb.
Your aims should suggest a particular outcome rather than being descriptive.
Do not merely “characterize” or “describe” something! It’s boring and it doesn’t convey the importance or excitement of what you hope to accomplish

41. Keys for a Successful Grant Application Specific Aims
A specific aim that collects data with out describing the rationale for the hypothesis sounds like a fishing expedition.
Each aim should include a hypothesis if possible.

42. Keys for a Successful Grant Application Specific Aims
Is the scope of the problem achievable?
Avoid proposing 10 years of work in a 3 or 4 year proposal

43. Keys for a Successful Grant Application Specific Aims
Combine low risk aims with one or two that are innovative and original
An innovative aim will include novel concepts or approaches
An innovative aim should advance the field
The specific aims should be interrelated but one aim should not depend on the success of another

44. Brief summary of background Long term goal Hypothesis Rationale
Specific Aims
Original slide from Roz Sandri-Goldin

45. Keys for a Successful Grant Application Backround and Significance
Rationale

46. Keys for a Successful Grant Application Backround and Significance
Set the stage
Show how existing work lays the ground work but does not go far enough
Bring together ideas and results (yours and others)
Identify gaps that your proposal will fill
Lay out still unanswered questions you will answer

47. Keys for a Successful Grant Application Backround and Significance
Compare and contrast work of others. Evaluate and critique it, but do so respectfully
Cite literature judiciously. You can’t cite every finding, but try to be fair.

48. One more Tip…
After describing the background that relates to a particular aim, end that section with:
This problem will be addressed in Aim _. Remind the reviewer that you are going to save the day and solve that problem in this grant by filling in that particular gap in our knowledge
Original slide from Roz Sandri-Goldin

49. Keys for a Successful Grant Application Preliminary Results
In God we Trust
All others must bring Data

50. Keys for a Successful Grant Application Preliminary Results
Demonstrate expertise in the techniques you are going to use.
Show your hypotheses are supported by your initial studies
Include only pertinent data
Advance your data clearly and professionally (don’t be sloppy)
Include well-designed tables and figures

51. Research Design & Methods
Provide a well-focused research plan
Provide sufficient experimental detail
Address data interpretation, anticipated results and alternative approaches
Propose a realistic amount of work
Secure collaborators for areas in which you lack experience and training

52. Keys for a Successful Grant Application Experimental Design
Address each Aim one at a time
Keep numbering consistent between Specific aims and Experimental Design section
Make sure design and methods are well- developed and appropriate?
Are problems areas addressed?

53. Keys for a Successful Grant Application Experimental Design
Start with a brief overview to remind reviewers what you are doing
Start each aim with brief rationale and hypothesis to be tested
Provide framework for description of experimental details which follow

54. Keys for a Successful Grant Application Experimental Design
If each aim has common experimental detail, you can end the entire section with a General methods section, separate from the specifics for each Aim.
Most reviewers what to see how the general research design plays out before fine details of methodology.

55. Keys for a Successful Grant Application Experimental Design
How much detail is enough?
Convey credibility but don’t get too bogged down in details.
If you have previously shown expertise either in preliminary results or publications, you don’t need as much detail as if the techniques are new to you.
Arrange for collaborations or coinvestigators in scientific areas in which you do not have established credentials.

56. Research Design and Methods
Do provide the rationale for each experimental approach
Discuss possible outcomes and how these will be interpreted
Discuss potential pitfalls and alternative approaches
Original slide from Roz Sandri-Goldin

57. A Picture Can Be Worth a Thousand Words
Illustrate models instead of describing them in the text
Use schematics to summarize
If data figures or schematics are inserted into the Preliminary Studies or Research Design sections, make sure both the figure and the legend are legible and easily readable by the reviewer
Original slide from Roz Sandri-Goldin

58. Using Figures
Original slide from Roz Sandri-Goldin
Both the figure and legend can easily be read by the reviewers.

59. Using Figures The legend can be read but the schematic cannot be read.
Original slide from Roz Sandri-Goldin
The legend can be read but the schematic cannot be read.

60. Neither the figure nor the legend can be read.
Using Figures
Original slide from Roz Sandri-Goldin
Neither the figure nor the legend can be read.
Why bother showing it?

61. Useful Tip
Add a short summary at the end of the Research Design and Methods section to drive home what will be learned from the studies and why that is significant. Future directions can be included briefly.
Original slide from Roz Sandri-Goldin

62. Bottom Line?
What will the reviewers be looking for?
How will they judge the application?

63. Benchmarks of an “Outstanding” Application
New or original ideas
Focused, incisive research plan
Knowledge of published relevant work
Experience in essential methodology
Future directions and contingency plans

64. Review of Research Grants
REVIEW CRITERIA Significance Approach Innovation Investigator Environment

65. Review of Research Grants
REVIEW CRITERIA Investigator - who are you? Make sure your CV is complete and conveys your areas of expertise and training. Make sure your preliminary results section conveys who you are. Actions speak louder than words.

66. Review of Research Grants
REVIEW CRITERIA Environment - Make sure you convince reviewers that your institution addresses all requirements of the proposed research plan.
List areas of expertise of colleagues, research cores and facilities that will aid your research, any institutional support that exists.
Justify reliance on external resources.

67. What if your first grant is not funded?
Don’t give up
Initial failure is common

68. What if your first grant is not funded?
Learn from it and succeed - a majority do
Study criticism in pink sheet
Decide if problems are reparable
Attend diligently to each criticism
Keep a positive tone and attitude in addressing criticism

69. Most common reasons for failure
Lack of new or original ideas
Diffuse, superficial or unfocused research plan
Lack of knowledge of published relevant work
Lack of experience in the essential methodology
Uncertainty concerning the future directions

70. More reasons for failure
Questionable reasoning in experimental approach
Absence of acceptable scientific rationale
Unrealistically large amount of work
Lack of sufficient experimental detail
Uncritical approach

71. Remember
There is no grantsmanship that will turn a bad idea into a good one, but…….
There are many ways to disguise a good one
William Raub, Past Deputy Director of NIH

72. Resources National Institutes of Health http://www.nih.gov
National Science Foundation
Hints for Writing Successful NIH grants by Ellen Barrett.
Extramural Funding Opportunites
Sounding Board: Picking a Research Problem by C. Ronald Kahn. The New England Journal of Medicine. 330:1530
How to Ask for a Research Grant by Janet S. Rasey. In Writing, Speaking, and Communication Skills for Health Professionals. Yale University Press. Pg

73. Scientific Questions Focused Lead to testable hypotheses Interesting
Significant

74. Drill down to a specific question
What does PTH do?
What does PTH do in osteoblasts?
How does PTH regulate bone formation in osteoblasts?
What are the downstream targets of PTH in osteoblasts?
What are the immediate early genes induced by PTH through the cAMP-PKA pathway in osteoblasts?